It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


Lovely man, just lovely.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 
That is interesting. Because world-wide, is is STILL common. Did you know that the Virgin Mary was about 13 when she became pregnant with Jesus? And it is only in America that the feministas have managed to create a bad stigma about older men and younger women. Most of the world sees it as normal even today. Some are even assigned spouses by parents. Not the father, but BOTH. And if you are married, you understand that this means the wife...




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Just wonder how all those coming out in support of a guy who doped and raped a child felt/feel about that lanky mormon cult guy who encouraged pimping out little girls for the sake of their religion? Warren Jeffs?

It's totally natural, right? No problems? Jeffs might actually be a better guy since I dont think any of the little girls were drugged.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


I sure hope you are not comparing the RAPE of Polanski's 13 year old VICTIM to the divine pregnancy of the VIRGIN Mary.

In the United States and the Western culture as a whole, sex between adults and 13 year olds is not an accepted behavior as set forth by our system of beliefs.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 
That is interesting. Because world-wide, is is STILL common. Did you know that the Virgin Mary was about 13 when she became pregnant with Jesus? And it is only in America that the feministas have managed to create a bad stigma about older men and younger women. Most of the world sees it as normal even today. Some are even assigned spouses by parents. Not the father, but BOTH. And if you are married, you understand that this means the wife...




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by John Matrix
 
That is interesting. Because world-wide, is is STILL common. Did you know that the Virgin Mary was about 13 when she became pregnant with Jesus? And it is only in America that the feministas have managed to create a bad stigma about older men and younger women. Most of the world sees it as normal even today. Some are even assigned spouses by parents. Not the father, but BOTH. And if you are married, you understand that this means the wife...



Again, the average age of marriage for citizenry in Europe, North American and Australia has been in the mid-twenties for about 500 years.

Even in Japan the average age of marriage for the last 300 years is mid twenties.

As a matter of fact, just because of your little "feminazi" comment - the sexual laws precluding you from screwing little girls were quite nasty. And men made those laws. Women didn't even have a vote or a say in it politically. Explain that.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by John Matrix
 
That is interesting. Because world-wide, is is STILL common. Did you know that the Virgin Mary was about 13 when she became pregnant with Jesus?


Wrong. Betrothals, yes, women did not "marry" until they could prove that they were of reproductive age, and with paternal consent.



And it is only in America that the feministas have managed to create a bad stigma about older men and younger women. Most of the world sees it as normal even today. Some are even assigned spouses by parents. Not the father, but BOTH. And if you are married, you understand that this means the wife...



Older men and younger women I have no problem with. Older men and children is sick.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think alot of people are getting a little off topic by arguing whether or not it was rape.

The facts of the case are this. The girl testified to being given alchol, qualudes, having him go down on her against her will, having sex with her against her will and then having anal sex with her against her will. The case went from rape to a lesser charge of statutory rape to which he plead quilty. By OUR COURT OF LAW, the testimony stands that he did in fact rape her by him pleading guilty to the lesser charge since the testimony is included in the trail. Dont get it confused, by him saying GUILTY, he said that her testimony is right whether or not he faced a (as whoopi would put it) "rape-rape" charge or just statutory rape. Either way, the testimony of the trail must stand due to our own court of law. We cant just start going around and dismissing court testimony. That is for the lawyers to pick out the he said she said crap, not us.

This man had plead out a deal. The judge reniged. People are forgetting it is still the judge's right to renig if so chooses. Yeah, its crappy if you are the one sittin in the chair, but you still have to man up and face the concequences to which he didnt and fled the country and lived the merry life.

The reason why I created this thread was to find out what we could do to show contempt for the Hollywood elite who are rallying around this man like he didnt plead guilty and he didnt flee from prosicution. Whether or not the man got a bum deal is irrelevant, he still must face the consequences of his actions.

If he would have stayed and manned up then he im willing to bet he wouldnt have served but a few years after a couple of appeals. But instead he took the chicken way out and flead the country.

To me, the Hollywood elite are saying that they dont have to live up to the same laws that we do if they are genious art makers or some crap like that. Whether you believe in what they say or not (i certainly dont) is irrelevant when they want to get away with something that they can should not legally get away with.

So, ill ask again. Is there another way besides just boycotting movies or shows (im willing to bet not to many people here actually watch the view anyways) to show these people that they are just people like the rest of us and must live up to the same standards that we do?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Refusal to give them your money. Don't go to their movies. Don't watch them on TV - they get royalties.

Refusal to buy a product advertized during a show they are on or directed.
That one works GREAT.

Complain to companies that carry their products.

You see "Powder" at Blockbuster? Complain.

You see Polanski, or Del Toros movies advertized at Amazon? Complain.

Cineplex putting up one of their movies? Complain.

Voice your disgust.

What made the Catholic Church take responsibility? Was it pride? Was it religion? Was it public pressure?

Or was it hitting them in the pocket?

It was hitting them in the pocket.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


1. Victims have no personal role in plea bargan offers. The prosecution weighs their case by the facts, evidence and by the credibility of their wtnesses, and the willingness of their witnesses to testify.

2. I am not arguing anything that is close to obscene and I am not interested in your imaginations about Cheney.

3. I explained that some 13 year old's can be very precocious and look much older. Translation = they look like you women. She says she was in 9th grade...this would mean she was very cleose to 14. Still a minor and still illegal to have sex with her. Note: I never said he didn't have sex, nor did I say it wasn't illegal. Read what I said, not what you think I said. If you have a question, give it to me, but don't jump to all these assumptions and twist things around. Stick to the facts jack.

4. I don't understand why you wrote your last paragraph in response to me. We all know he plead guilty and was convicted. That's not the issue.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by John Matrix
 
That is interesting. Because world-wide, is is STILL common. Did you know that the Virgin Mary was about 13 when she became pregnant with Jesus?


Wrong. Betrothals, yes, women did not "marry" until they could prove that they were of reproductive age, and with paternal consent.



And it is only in America that the feministas have managed to create a bad stigma about older men and younger women. Most of the world sees it as normal even today. Some are even assigned spouses by parents. Not the father, but BOTH. And if you are married, you understand that this means the wife...



Older men and younger women I have no problem with. Older men and children is sick.


Note: Non of your quotes above or your comments are edited properly.

Those are not my words you are responding to above. It looks that way, but it's not correct.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I can't help but notice some disturbing elements woven throughout this thread, not the least of which is the defense of certain proclivities. Be patient- I'll give the point of my post at the end.

I'm no Hollywood insider, but I worked as a costume designer for many famous people when I lived in California for 25 years. I saw so many things first hand that curled my hair, that I had to get out of that business- a job isn't worth my soul. Don't get me wrong- most of the folks I worked for were very nice people; Hollywood runs the gamut as far as what character the rich & famous have.

That being said- I'll begin with a quote from Ed Sanders, the investigative reporter who authored an excellent book on the Manson murders called "The Family"- "...the L.A. (Los Angeles) scene eats perv for breakfast."

There were indications at the time- check out the contemporary reports in the L.A. Times & the San Francisco Chronicle- that the child in question was the victim not only of rape but of an all too common practice called "the sacrificial lamb". I not only feel that Polanski's prison sentence is long overdue, but that the girl's mother should have gone to prison, as well.

What mother in her right mind leaves her 13 year old daughter with a known womanizer & child molester? The kind of mother that does this is a socio- and/or psychopath with a pretty child who wants the income they can get if said child were in the movies. I don't think this child knew what she was in for when her mother left her with Polanski. She was supposed to be there for a modeling shoot (BAD move- if you want to be a legit model, get an agent & get real jobs). "Mom" most likely knew what was going to happen- a decent mother would have stayed to watch the shoot.

After the rape, no movie deal was forthcoming- so, "Mom" went after Polanski. She wanted money & got it. Polanski wasn't counting on being convicted as well- so, he fled the country. And, promptly afterward, made a movie with then-14 year old Nastassia Kinski & Marcello Mastroianni. About a middle aged man dallying with a young girl. There was a big Playboy magazine pictorial then showing a naked Nast-
assia cavorting with both men at the time. How's that for arrogance, America? Polanski was basically flaunting in everyone's face that laws don't apply to him, & that he had every intention of getting away with what he did & openly carrying on as if it were perfectly proper with other young girls. As far as his current arrest goes- WHAT THE DEVIL TOOK SO LONG??!!

The main stream media in this country has been sexualizing children for a very long time. Just because certain responses to it are common doesn't mean it's normal. It's as wrong as this country not upholding its laws protecting children. If Polanski isn't punished, next thing you know monsters like Phillip Garrido will not be prosecuted.

I can't believe how many people blame the victim in this case. No child of 13 has any business being in such a situation. They are naive & easily exploited- especially if given alcohol & drugs. There's a reason that Quaaludes aren't legal any more- it was the "date rape" drug of its time.

As for what treatment Polanski is likely to get in prison- THERE'S A LOT WRONG WITH THAT, FOLKS. I understand that people can be angry about what the man did, but it isn't right. People are supposed to be in prison to be rehabilitated. Why are prisons in this country run in such a manner that the prisoners can prey upon one another violently? THEY SHOULD NOT BE. Why else do people like Garrido start raping again as soon as they get out? Are prisoners supposed to come out of prison only to prey upon the populace?

Because of the financial hardships of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany descended into Sodom & Gomorrah. Next thing you know, they were saying "Sieg Heil!" This country is descending in the same manner, even before the Crash of 2008. Think it can't happen here? Just ask Jim Marrs, author of "The Fourth Reich".



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


1. Victims have no personal role in plea bargan offers. The prosecution weighs their case by the facts, evidence and by the credibility of their wtnesses, and the willingness of their witnesses to testify.


You forgot to add they will also plea bargain if the victim in a rape or assault case is mentally unable to deal with a lengthy trial. They also plea bargain to prevent a case from going to appeals. They plea bargain for a lot of reasons.

Chris Brown for example. Everyone knows he beat Rhianna. He admitted it. He pled so that he could get community service instead of jail time. The case against him was not weak.


2. I am not arguing anything that is close to obscene


Reread what you wrote then and be more clear.


3. I explained that some 13 year old's can be very precocious and look much older. Translation = they look like you women.
Read the transcripts. He did not mistake her for an adult so this is superfluous and inflammatory.


Note: I never said he didn't have sex, nor did I say it wasn't illegal. Read what I said, not what you think I said. If you have a question, give it to me, but don't jump to all these assumptions and twist things around. Stick to the facts jack.


You implied it was not rape. You implied it might have been consensual and the facts of the case (read the court documents) do not show that in the least. She said "no". He did not dispute that.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


There is only one area of your analysis of the case that I see might be a problem....there was a plea bargain....and based on all the elements of that deal he was offered, he plead guilty.

The judge having reneged, begs the question....would he have plead guilty knowing the deal would be foiled?

It could be seen as trickery to get him to make a guilty plea.

Credit for time served is pretty standard. Let's not forget he was punished and has lead a productive life as a law abiding citizen for many years.

People hear are acting like this just happened yesterday and he hasn't been tried yet. He was tried....a deal was reached...he agreed to the deal...he had been incarcerated....he had spent time locked up.....so he was punished. The additional punishment that he was supposed to receive was time in an psychological evaluation center....then an injustice occurred when the judge went back on his promise. So he fled and he didn't spend time in the psychological evaluation center. He was perfectly willing to do the deal....which is why he plead guilty. He didn't get away with anything. He was convicted and accepted his punishment for his guilty plea.

He committed the crime....yes.....but a deal is a deal.

So let's stop arguing about whether he did it or not, or whether it's wrong....we all know it's wrong....I never said it was right....and ask ourselves if he should be dragged back here at tax payer expense after 30 years, only to be made an example of by a glory seeking prosecutor.

Ya don't offer a deal for a guilty plea and then back out on it after the guy lives up to his end and pleads guilty. That is just criminal.


[edit on 1/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Judges are certainly allowed to review deals made, and if they are heinously inappropriate to fix them.

That's their JOB.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


1. Victims have no personal role in plea bargan offers. The prosecution weighs their case by the facts, evidence and by the credibility of their wtnesses, and the willingness of their witnesses to testify.


You forgot to add they will also plea bargain if the victim in a rape or assault case is mentally unable to deal with a lengthy trial. They also plea bargain to prevent a case from going to appeals. They plea bargain for a lot of reasons.


Right, which is why I suggested we wait before passing judgement and condemning the guy.



You implied it was not rape. You implied it might have been consensual and the facts of the case (read the court documents) do not show that in the least. She said "no". He did not dispute that.


Implying it might be consensual does not translate into implying it's not rape. There were interviews of people close to the case that said it was consensual....that's all I implied. The victim, in 2003 I think it was, said she was forced. So now, taking the article at face value, she still says it was forced, but maintains that the trauma caused by the media attention was more harmful to her than the rape.

But the bottom line is, a deal was reached to convince him to accept a plea bargain and give a guilty plea, which he accepted. He had already been punished, and agreed to spend time in a psychological evaluation center. He agreed to the terms, entered his guilty plea and got a knife in the back by a judge representing the justice system.

What does anyone hope to gain from dragging him back here and ruining the guy and his entire family?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


If the deal is made prior to the judge's consent...yes. This judge consented and promised to send Polanski to a psychological evaluation center and credit Polanski for time served.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Aeons
 


Even among the elite, your "coming out" in society did not occur before 16. Eighteen was more respectable.


After doing research I stand corrected....however....there were small isolated communities in early American history where it was normal to see 13 and 14 year olds married to 25 and 30 yr. old men. I found the info but didn't want to post it and get off topic....it's not a strong argument for anything.

Sorry to have mentioned it. I give myself two thumbs down.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by John MatrixThe purpose of punishment is deterrence and rehabilitation. There is no indication Polanski repeated his conduct, and plenty of evidence for his rehabilitation.


Do rehabilitated sex offenders sound like this?

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
-Roman Polanski, Interview with Martin Amis 1979


Well, views about sex are much different in some parts of Europe.

There could be some truth to what he says anyway, and I don't think it speaks to his not being rehabilitated....he is just being honest and truthful really. Example: In Canada, the Supreme Court had a chance to change the age for sexual consent from 14 to 16 a few years ago....maybe they refused because they like young women.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


There was still a close in age exception in there. that's why. They merely extended the age up, and have a close in age exception to increase the number of years that teenagers are protected from predatory type adults.

AND minors below that age group participating in sexual behaviours with other people of the same age group are not considered for legal punishment.

Practicality is awesome.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join